Pages

11/03/2013

Oscar Predictions: Round 2 - So Many Actors, Not Enough Spots

Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke in Before Midnight. Is there room for them?

The Oscar race of 2013 is already a crowded one, as
we’ve seen from the first little murmurings on the supporting categories and
the lead categories. The movies themselves don’t have so much to worry about if
they want to be acknowledged, for the recently added flexibility of the number
of nominations from five to ten has added more wiggle room to accommodate
worthy films. Acting categories, however, remain at a firm five nominees. Take
last year, for example, in which the Best Actor field was generally assumed to
be down to six actors going into the nominations: Bradley Cooper, Daniel
Day-Lewis, John Hawkes, Hugh Jackman, Joaquin Phoenix, and Denzel Washington.
John Hawkes missed the cut, as we know, simply because there wasn’t room to
accommodate all six of these popular performances within the five openings. Five
is clean and traditional, but it doesn’t always reflect the best of the best.

It’s hard to know where to start to find the
potential ‘John Hawkes’ among the field of contenders. Choose a potential
nominee with great reviews, year-long buzz, and love from precursor awards: (Is
it Forest Whitaker? Tom Hanks? Matthew "Give him a nomination already"
McConaughey? Robert Redford in a career performance? Cannes winner Bruce Dern? Who?

An early look at the range of this year’s nomination-worthy
performances suggests that something needs to change so another worthy actor
doesn’t miss his or her due, well, just because. The switch from 5-10 Best
Picture nominees has met with varying reactions, but the acting categories
should also follow the logic of opening the field to accommodate more
contenders whom voters deem have merit. Acknowledging a wider field of actors will make the Oscar
game less worrisome and, better yet, a more accurate reflection of the quality
of work that graces the screen in a given year.

Expanding the category to
include ten names might not be feasible, for an extra twenty names and clips
might add to the broadcast and take away from the work of other nominees in
other categories. However, loosening the edge from five to, say, six or seven
depending on vote calculations could work. There are a few other reasons why it might be
better to let us predict seven names over five, such as creating an equal
opportunity for independent films, which might earn actors a high return of
votes from people who actually saw the film, versus a performance in a
mainstream film that can was probably seen by a comparatively greater number of voters and could secure a spot more easily thanks to its wider reach. (See:
the tragic overlooking of Tilda Swinton’s performance in Julia.)

Campaigning might
be far less aggressive, too, as there would be more room for multiple actors
from the same film. This extra space could prevent controversial factors like category
fraud, as there would be room for, say, both Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts to
be nominated in the lead category, plus Margo Martindale might not be edged out of the supporting category by a lead performance. (As Leonardo DiCaprio was last year by his Django Unchained co-star, and eventual Oscar winner, Christoph Waltz.) The likes of Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke could benefit just as well, for the extra opportunity could help early releases like Before Midnight that often seem to be forgotten at the end of the year.

A wider field generally honours excellent work without
diminishing the integrity of the awards. (It’s true that the Emmys have seen
some dubious wins since their categories were opened, but the Emmys were
questionable long before this change occurred.) The inclusive Best Picture
category has thrown some unexpected surprises since opening the field, but for
every The Blind Side or Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,
there has been a Winter’s Bone, a Tree of Life, a Beasts of the Southern Wild or an Amour that got the recognition it deserved. The Best Picture vote
requires a minimum percentage of ballots simply to ensure that the show isn’t
filled with dregs for the sake of filling a category. (This change happened after The Blind Side was nominated in the short-lived two year period of ten guaranteed slots.) If only seven contenders receives
the five percent it takes to earn the nomination, then the year is exemplified by
seven films. However, seven is still broader and more representative than five
are.

Furthermore, flexible categories preserve the integrity of
the awards because media and fans would create more positive buzz for the
ceremony. It’s better to have fans celebrate the Academy for finding room for
an independent underdog like, say, Demián Bichir, than decrying the omission of
a favourite like, say, Michael Fassbender. A flexible field seems like a
win-win situation. There are so many strong performances this year, so it seems time the Academy made some changes.

For the time being, however, the four acting categories only
have five spots apiece. We’ve already looked at who might make the cut and who
might miss out, so here is a full update for the time being. It would be
difficult to project who might be headed to the Oscars if the field were
widened, anyway!